Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
of you. i'm brooke baldwin. four weeks, three republican senators have been slamming susan rice and the obama administration. why? all over their response to the attack in benghazi. well, today both sides came face to face. you are about to hear what happened inside that meeting and why those senators are not satisfied today. but, first, the urgent situation that has everyone's attention, members of the house, they're officially back to work as of right now, this hour. senators returned to washington yesterday. so everyone finally on the job after their week long thanksgiving break. that gives congress and the president, count it with me, 35 days to avoid the dreaded fiscal cliff, the huge package of tax hikes and spending cuts set to take effect january 1 if congress and the president do not cut a deal. we're told they have been talking behind the scenes and president obama has already hosted congressional leaders for a post election sit-down. but the president is also launching a new pr effort, a campaign, some are calling it here, starting with the white house meeting today,
to be this tone where they want to give susan rice a chance to explain herself, that they're willing to sit down and talk over these issues with her. at a listen to what senator mccain had to say about this over the weekend. >> i think she deserves the ability and the opportunity to explain herself and her position, just as she said. but she is not the problem. the problem is the president of the united states. >> now, again, we should point out that she has not been nominated for this post, but there's a lot of speculation that she is the top choice from this white house to replace secretary clinton when she departs. also another name, john kerry on that list. but again, nothing definite on that. but nonetheless, this is something that has been getting a lot of attention, pushback from senator mccain and other republicans, and now that apparent change in tone, john. >> any sense on why we're seeing that change in tone? because the comments really do appear quite different than what they were saying. >> they do. and you know, we've reached out to senator mccain and others and so far we don't hav
. the woman at center of the firestorm facing more questions. today u.n. ambassador to the u.s. susan rice met with republican senators who harshly criticized her initial ex-plan nation about the attack that killed four americans including ambassador chris stevens. what senator lindsey graham said after the meeting. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before, that the 16th september explanation about how four americans died in benghazi, libya, by ambassador rice, i think, does not do justice to the reality at the time and in hindsight clearly was completely wrong. >> dana bash following developments on capitol hill. before susan rice went before these republicans, senators, they seemed to be backing away from criticizing her. now it looks like in speaking with them, this is backfired. can you tell us what happened? >> reporter: that's right. i was told by a source familiar with this meeting that the reason why the senators backed off public comments, softened them, they did, susan rice requested a meeting and felt that was the most appropriate thing to do not keep pounding her be
controversial coming out of these briefings, whether or not susan rice, the u.n. ambassador -- the u.s. ambassador to the u.n., had the proper information or was correct in what she said publicly about the attack being probably at that point four days after the attack because of a demonstration. democrats are really to a person coming to her defense aggressively and trying to explain why there was a discrepancy. listen to kent conrad of the democratic member of the senate health care community. >> what is very clear is that ambassador rice used the talking points that the intelligence committee had all signed off on. that is very, very clear. she used the unclassified talking points that were signed off on by the entire intelligence community, so criticisms of her are completely unwarranted. that is very clear. >> and susan, dianne feinstein, just moments ago actually took out and read the unclassified talking points that susan rice used on that day, and they were very short. it sounds like there were two, maybe three points in the talking points, and it was almost certain to change.
with this term that could be fed to the public. susan rice said that this was what she was cleared to use when she spoke by television a few days after the attack. >> some people are calling this a cover-up, including white house aids of covering it up, someone removed the terror link from the talking points that was initially handed out. a did that happen, and if it did happen, why? >> how in this process of removing the specific names of these extremist groups including al qaeda affiliate, a local liberal group, was there any one individual or one agency that did this? this went through an interagency process in washington 1/2. it had to be signed off by various members of the white house, members of the nfc. the only words they changed along with the state department was changing the words to diplomatic facility in the -- from the mission. and so they had nothing to do with the intelligence assessment at all. so there's still some question of exactly where in this process that the names were changed to the more generic reference to terror. >> you're not in new york city, that skyline behind
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)